• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

has anyone read "lies and the lying liars..."

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Sounds like another Oprah book of the month from some spited woman or maybe it's the neo-con bible.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
chapter 16 is damning for bush and his total ignorance and incompetence in terms of terrorism before 9/11. clinton put out a hit on bin laden and tripled the anti terrorism budget and did many other things, which bush ignored. he ignored warnings from the previous administration, he ignored the plan to destroy al queda given to them by clinton created in his last weeks. he instead spent 60% of his time in texas ranches and stuff etc.


stuff on coulter/riely/goldberg/hannity also damning. like him or not, unlike conservative book whores, franken doesn't lie. i haven't finished it yet, but so far its been funny while shredding liars:)
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
chapter 16 is damning for bush and his total ignorance and incompetence in terms of terrorism before 9/11. clinton put out a hit on bin laden and tripled the anti terrorism budget and did many other things, which bush ignored. he ignored warnings from the previous administration, he ignored the plan to destroy al queda given to them by clinton created in his last weeks. he instead spent 60% of his time in texas ranches and stuff etc.


stuff on coulter/riely/goldberg/hannity also damning. like him or not, unlike conservative book whores, franken doesn't lie. i haven't finished it yet, but so far its been funny while shredding liars:)
What was Clinton's plan to destroy Al Queda? What specific warnings are you talking about?
 

Tates

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 25, 2000
9,079
10
81
Al Franken is a Satirist. The book is a work of satire. 'Nuff said.
 

Bigdude

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,087
0
0
Left-wing comedian Al Franken readily admits he lied in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft and others. And that's not all. Mr. Franken also admits to deception by misappropriating the letterhead from Harvard's Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy
The irony: Mr. Franken's new book is called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: Bigdude
Left-wing comedian Al Franken readily admits he lied in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft and others. And that's not all. Mr. Franken also admits to deception by misappropriating the letterhead from Harvard's Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy
The irony: Mr. Franken's new book is called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."
well, yes...but he ADMITS to lying. which is the key. no, it doesnt make it any less a lie, but at least he knows when he is wrong. besides, as posted above: its satire. maybe based in fact, but mostly underscored in order to prove a purpose.
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
chapter 16 is damning for bush and his total ignorance and incompetence in terms of terrorism before 9/11. clinton put out a hit on bin laden and tripled the anti terrorism budget and did many other things, which bush ignored.
This is laughable. Clinton passed on bin Laden at least 11 times. Look up Richard Miniter's new book on how Bill Clinton dropped the ball on bin Laden. Also, look up Monsoor Ijaz. He personally was involved with getting bin Laden handed over to the Clinton but Clinton passed it up. Clinton later admitted he let bin Laden go because he had no yet harmed America, but they knew he had plans to!



 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
actually Monsoor Ijaz was discredited being unreliable and self serving, he only made the offer to further his own interests. it was investigated and found not to be real. and frankly you don't sign an executive order for assassination if your not serious about it. republicans were against clinton and thus any anti terrorism he supported. their partisanship helped bring on 9/11. they decided it was better to shut down governement and conduct witch hunts instead. conservatives like to repeat things even after they've been found to be wrong:p as the say goes.. say it enough and it'll become the truth:p


Left-wing comedian Al Franken readily admits he lied in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft and others. And that's not all. Mr. Franken also admits to deception by misappropriating the letterhead from Harvard's Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy
The irony: Mr. Franken's new book is called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."

yet another prime example of how conservatives are intellectually dishonest, taking quotes out of context and plain distortion. its their bread and butter.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Left-wing comedian Al Franken readily admits he lied in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft and others. And that's not all. Mr. Franken also admits to deception by misappropriating the letterhead from Harvard's Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy
The irony: Mr. Franken's new book is called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."
I heard this interview on NPR . . . you are incredibly disingenuous in your portrayal. Franken indeed posed as a fellow from Harvard (which was accurate) collecting information for a book about "heroes of abstinence" (which was a lie). Curiously, only four staffers replied to his letter and all of them claimed to be too busy to recount how they saved themselves for marriage . . . Condi's should be a short story b/c she's never been married. The letterhead would be consistent with his post (which was true) while giving credence to the
book story (which was false). My question to you, "how would one collect information on the hypocrisy of the self-righteous without using deception?"
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
actually Monsoor Ijaz was discredited being unreliable and self serving, he only made the offer to further his own interests.
Discredited by who? Please provide a link if you can.

Ijaz at that time was a major financial supporter of Clinton. He had worked a deal with the president of Sudan who wanted bin Laden out of the Sudan because he wanted "terrorism sanctions" lifted against his country. The Sudanese offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him back to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis didn't want bin Laden so the Sudanese offered to arrest him and hand him over to the US. Clinton declined saying there wasn't enough evidence against bin Laden. Months later the Sudan kicked bin Laden out because of pressure from the US.

Ijaz has since challenged Senate Democrats to subpeona him to testify about pre 9-11 security. They have refused because they know the truth will hurt them and Clinton.

it was investigated and found not to be real. and frankly you don't sign an executive order for assassination if your not serious about it.
Again, provide a link to this investigation. As for assassination I never said anything about that so I have no idea what you are talking about.

republicans were against clinton and thus any anti terrorism he supported.
Congress was not involved in the Ijaz deal. It was Security Advisor Sandy Berger and AG Janet Reno.

Face it, your boy screwed up.



 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
Discredited by who? Please provide a link if you can.

Ijaz at that time was a major financial supporter of Clinton. He had worked a deal with the president of Sudan who wanted bin Laden out of the Sudan because he wanted "terrorism sanctions" lifted against his country. The Sudanese offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him back to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis didn't want bin Laden so the Sudanese offered to arrest him and hand him over to the US. Clinton declined saying there wasn't enough evidence against bin Laden. Months later the Sudan kicked bin Laden out because of pressure from the US.

Ijaz has since challenged Senate Democrats to subpeona him to testify about pre 9-11 security. They have refused because they know the truth will hurt them and Clinton.

well go look up the NSA and CIA which both agreed he was an unreliable source. he said that sudan would give us osama if we dropped all sanctions against it. when we went to sudan, there was no mention of osama.

Again, provide a link to this investigation. As for assassination I never said anything about that so I have no idea what you are talking about.
after the Embassy bombings, Clinton signed an executive order authorizing the assasination of Osama Bin Laden. no right wing rag is going to write much about that.

face it, bush was asleep at the wheel. 60% of his first 7 months were spent on vacation on ranches etc. the departing clinton administration in a gesture of good will to the new administration offered to give 10 briefings on terrorism, which bush of course ignored. in the last weeks the clinton plan against al queda was created, he didn't impliment it as handing off a war to a new administration is a bad idea. bush coulda cared less, his priorities were tax cuts for the wealthy, and missle defense:p and repeating lies about 2 whole divisions that supposedly would report not ready for duty. which was found out to be a blatent lie.. as most things that come out of his mouth are.

guess what bush was doing when 9/11 happened, he was reading to school children. sounds like he was urgently trying to fix the whole bungled mess the clintons supposedly left behind from military to intelligence/security etc that republicans are supposedly in a rage about.


bush spent his time complaining about how truely disasterous the clintons were. since he did nothing after gaining the office, there are two possibilities. he was lying. or he was incompetent.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
yet another prime example of how conservatives are intellectually dishonest,
You have to have intellect to be intellectually dishonest. Not thier fault, kudos for setting the record straight, hopefully you used simple enough words.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,388
75
91
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
chapter 16 is damning for bush and his total ignorance and incompetence in terms of terrorism before 9/11. clinton put out a hit on bin laden and tripled the anti terrorism budget and did many other things, which bush ignored. he ignored warnings from the previous administration, he ignored the plan to destroy al queda given to them by clinton created in his last weeks. he instead spent 60% of his time in texas ranches and stuff etc.


stuff on coulter/riely/goldberg/hannity also damning. like him or not, unlike conservative book whores, franken doesn't lie. i haven't finished it yet, but so far its been funny while shredding liars:)

This book is footnoted and written by an investigative reporter. Is Franken's book the same or is it because you are politically in synch with Franken that you think that he is not a "book whore" and does not lie.

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
chapter 16 is damning for bush and his total ignorance and incompetence in terms of terrorism before 9/11. clinton put out a hit on bin laden and tripled the anti terrorism budget and did many other things, which bush ignored. he ignored warnings from the previous administration, he ignored the plan to destroy al queda given to them by clinton created in his last weeks. he instead spent 60% of his time in texas ranches and stuff etc.


stuff on coulter/riely/goldberg/hannity also damning. like him or not, unlike conservative book whores, franken doesn't lie. i haven't finished it yet, but so far its been funny while shredding liars:)

This book is footnoted and written by an investigative reporter. Is Franken's book the same or is it because you are politically in synch with Franken that you think that he is not a "book whore" and does not lie.

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror

Well I can tell you it's a lie just by looking at the title. Bin ladens himself said it's our support for israel and USA in SA which compelled him to "Unleashed Global Terror".
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,864
83
91
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
chapter 16 is damning for bush and his total ignorance and incompetence in terms of terrorism before 9/11. clinton put out a hit on bin laden and tripled the anti terrorism budget and did many other things, which bush ignored. he ignored warnings from the previous administration, he ignored the plan to destroy al queda given to them by clinton created in his last weeks. he instead spent 60% of his time in texas ranches and stuff etc.


stuff on coulter/riely/goldberg/hannity also damning. like him or not, unlike conservative book whores, franken doesn't lie. i haven't finished it yet, but so far its been funny while shredding liars:)

This book is footnoted and written by an investigative reporter. Is Franken's book the same or is it because you are politically in synch with Franken that you think that he is not a "book whore" and does not lie.

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror


well no, because frankens claims ussually check out, leaving conservatives squirming in their seats. what could oriely say when he got confronted? nothing, he was caught red handed. goldberg? he could say nothing... coulter? countless instances of blatent lies through misleading or plain wrong end notes. conservative writers and footnotes and lies go together quite well, so no, footnotes by itself wouldn't work.


with a title like that its probably nothing more then more political assassination material like that created by david brock which the right worshipped for so long. it fits in right beside the rest of the discredited mountain of right wing trash anti clinton books blaming him for every evil in existence in america. and consider how bush bungled terrorism control after he got into office, i doubt miniter wrote a damn thing about that.

its funny how the right ignores that their prime hitman couldn't live with the lies he was telling and turned on them. no apologies from the right for following such lies which brock was behind, from anita hill to clinton.. :p
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
1
0
I just finished the book today, it was my vaction read.

I enjoyed it, espescially parts where he discusses the planned format of the Hannity and Colmes show.

Franken admits to making lies in the book and when he does, you either know it (thick satire), or he notes it in the footnote (note to Ann Coulter).

Of course, if you're conservative, you won't believe what he says, no matter what the evidence. But, if you're not a lost cause, or you know when to laugh, it's a good read.
 

friedpie

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
703
0
0
since he did nothing after gaining the office, there are two possibilities. he was lying. or he was incompetent.
You are not even worth arguing with. Arguing with you is like chasing your own tail, it's a waste of energy.


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY